To be completley flabbergasted that rape within marriage wasn't a crime for so long?

[user1483314270]

It was made illegal in 1991. I was born in 1988 so it was still legal in my lifetime.

I actually only found this out recently as I'm doing an access to law course at college and I'm still completely that it was legal for so long and within my lifetime.

I actually have an essay to write and I have to talk about the case which resulted in it becoming a criminal offence and it got me thinking about it again.

Seriously though, wtf! Why was it made illegal earlier? I think if someone had asked me prior to starting my college course when it was made a illegal I probably would have assumed the 1960's or the 70's at a push but the 1990's! Seriously!

I've posted the wrong link.

There was an awful case I remember from the 1980s. A family hosted the wedding of their elder daughter, that night someone broke in and murdered the parents and the son. The 18 year old younger daughter was raped at knife point more than once.

At the trial I can remember she seemed to be on the stand for a week, being questioned as to whether she had enjoyed the rape. She had to change her name

beckyelvinamennell.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/anniversary-of-the-dore-wedding-day-massacre/

What's worrying is how recent this is. We are sleepwalking into taking some pretty big steps backwards and I hope reading this thread opens some people's eyes.

Imagine your partner saying you can't hold their hand,touch them,
be near them,cuddle them etc until they say so,until you redeemed yourself in their eyes for some transgression.Not even in a sexual context but the day to day things.

This post highlights why the whole issue of whether withholding sex is abusive has to be considered in context, usually in the context of a larger pattern of emotional abuse. To just put "withholding sex" in a bulleted list of signs of abuse as appears to be the case in the poster seen by GloveBug's DH is potentially seriously misleading and potentially damaging, especially for women.

I happened to watch an old episode of a BBC drama on youtube the other day and a 16 year old girl character was trying to persuade her mother that it was a good thing for her to date/marry a man in his twenties because "He's going to give me my own bank account!" The programme only went out in 1996!

It's all so recent, we have short memories.

I also found this an illuminating read, from the same time period (1990).
www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36434191

The original rape laws were also based around a culture of women as property. Rape was a crime because you were defiling somebody's wife, or somebody's daughter. Therefore it wasn't a crime to rape your wife because it's like stealing from yourself, it's an oxymoron. It's a shockingly modern idea that rape actually harms women directly.

The article (I should have said) is about the beginnings of the phrase "date rape" and the first widespread understanding/discussion of the fact that this kind of assault is also rape. It may be triggering, but it's not very graphic.

I'm not sure why you're flabbergasted. A couple of hours reading the Relationship boards on here will still show you that while marital rape is lillegal, it is still depressing common and acceptable.

my ex forced me to marry him (threatened with murder, wish he had now) and this was in 92/93. raped me repeatedly.

told me it wasn't as he was my husband, it was his right to etc etc.

I reprted it and the police did fuck all about it,. they laughed in my face saying cos we were married it was his right.

if it was illegal why did he and the police get away with it? to this day I cant get him convicted for it.

I remember the campaigning for this. Because many people thought that a man could not rape his wife, some of the cases campaigners highlighted were where a couple had split up, but were still legally married. I remember reading of one case where a woman had left her Husband, moved into her won house. Her still legal Husband forced his way into her house and raped her. There was nothing anyone could do, as what he had done was not a crime.

Here is a short paper from the US that summarizes some of the prosecutorial challenges.

Prosecuting Intimate Partner Sexual Assault

I remember this. Feminists had campaigned unsuccessfully for a change in the law for some time - and then, as another poster pointed out, it was changed by a judge in a court case rather than by parliament.

One thing I remember vividly was an article in one of the Sunday newspapers (either the Observer or the Independent on Sunday) by the novelist Piers Paul Read saying the change in the law was a terrible thing and now police stations would be full of married women in their nighties complaining that their husbands were making them have sex.

I remember feeling so angry about that. It was so far from the truth of what marital rape is, as he'd have known if he'd bothered to talk to people like Rape Crisis.

Rape during the course of a relationship trial. 2014. Regardless of the verdict and wether i agree with it or not, i found it very chilling and scary when the judge himself said "It cannot be sex on mondays,thursdays,fridays and rape on sundays. It's either one or the other",

I remember this change in the law. Couldn't believe it hadn't been a concept until then.

Young women have no idea how fragile the rights they are throwing away with both hands are.

RebelRouge

I think I fundamentally disagree....

An abuser may withhold intimacy, but the 'abuse' isn't, and should never be seen as, the withholding of intimacy. No one has the right to demand intimacy from their partner.... intimacy, like sex, is something that should only be freely given and received. To say that withholding intimacy is a sign of abuse risks making partners feel they are obliged to be intimate to avoid a charge being made that their lack of intimacy is a form of emotional abuse.... it's one step away from saying that withholding sex is a form of abuse!

Banana fair enough. It just makes sense in my head,even if it doesn't written down.
I did correct myself though,and said that withholding intimacy coupled with other behaviours can be one of the signs of abuse.

Rebel I think what you mean is making intimacy conditional, or using intimacy as a tool for manipulation?

Sparrow yeah that's what i'm trying to say. Sorry if I'm not making much sense .

No it wasn't intimacy the counsellor said I must provide, just sex. In fact one of the things is said was that I felt 'uncomfortable' and vulnerable when there had been no intimacy and lots of nastiness, followed immediately by sex.

(Again tmi so don't read if it will upset anyone)

Sex which I didn't want, said no, tried to push him off, failed, he didn't even try and arouse me, just pulled clothing away to get his penis in, and routinely tore me by his 'sex act' (aka rape). Came inside me then walked off leaving me crying and bleeding. I also said that having sex whilst I was still (sorry), torn from the last time was even more painful as he ripped open the tears again.

This was all said to the counsellor. With a massive effort on my part.

And that's when she launched into her amazingly awful attack on me, that I was using sex to manipulate my husband, I should 'give' him sex whenever he wanted it, even if I didn't as I had all the 'power' by refusing him. And I actually asked her 'even though it's hurting me and making me bleed' and she said yes, of course, I should look on it as flattering he wanted sex and basically, just get on with it.

Oh and I should realize that men have sex to show intimacy, not intimacy before sex, so again, I was being unreasonable to 'demand' he show kindness or niceness before I wanted to have sex!

H didn't even try and deny the description of how he had sec with me, just whined that I withheld sex and I never wanted sex (Quelle surprise with sex like that!).

Then had a protracted debate where I got him to tell her how frequently he did this and how often he thought was reasonable to have sex - which was every day, if not more frequently. She looked surprised and said in 'situations like this' it tended to be weeks/months that the woman 'refused' sex, and she asked H again whether I was being accurate saying every day. But she didn't seem to want to shift her opinion on my blame anyway.

Then I told her about the times H had sex with me on my sleep, so I woke up to him on top of me and again, couldn't push him off. This was me again not being nice to him.

And when I asked what she thought of when he had (very rough) sex with me in his sleep, which scared me (even more than all the rest of the stuff he did)... again, I should be taking it as a compliment.

It was years after that I got pregnant and found mumsnet, and got the courage up to tell anyone what was happening again. I had also blanked out that there was physical abuse, as this dreadful counsellor and H told me it was my fault when I brought up some of the first stuff, like him throwing a bag of tin cans at my head... my fault for arguing with him when he was stressed apparently. I was arguing with him as he was refusing to help carry shopping back home as he was 'tired' & wanted to go for a coffee and cigarette and leave me with the shopping. He was tired... of course me being absolutely knackered as I worked a 60-70 hr week and did all the housework, cooking etc, plus the bills and forever doing overtime to try and clear the debts he kept getting us into. But, obviously he was tired so I should have been understanding.

Basically, reading that back she must have hated me! I guess victims can be bloody annoying and whiny so I wonder if she just joined in 'kicking the dog'.

I felt trapped in a nightmare, the sessions were awful, felt like I'd been attacked afterwards. But H would be nicer for a day or so after so I stupidly kept going.

God Misc that is so awful.

If it helps any, I doubt she hated you. She either got a kick out of participating in the abuse or had some seriously twisted ideas about the role of women in relationships. There's a high chance she'd been sexually abused herself and needed to minimise it. Whatever the story what she said was utterly wrong. You know that right?

Jesus Misc...no words

Miscellaneous

I'm sorry you had such an awful experience, and the counsellor was effectively an accomplice in the abuse - just awful.

I stand by my point about intimacy.... I could set whatever conditions I like about when I allowed intimacy, or sex for that matter. Depending on what they were it may not be healthy for my marriage but it wouldn't make me abusive.

Why? Because intimacy, like sex, is not a right. Abuse is where someone's basic rights and dignity are denied to them.... To say otherwise either devalues the term 'abuse' by extending it to include behaviour that is 'merely' unhealthy or unwise, or asserts that intimacy is a basic right that your partner is obliged to provide. It's a small step from the latter to argue that sex is such a right too.

I read Rebel's post as meaning using withholding as a form of emotional abuse as part of a pattern of manipulation or punishment. Another example might be withholding while telling the partner they are ugly, fat, etc. or flaunting affairs. Certainly it can never be considered abusive to say no to sex/intimacy on demand, which is what Misc was told, which is just horrific, or what some people may think on reading a poster like the one described by Glove.

Miscellaneous I'm so sorry, that's awful.

I don't think for one second that you were an annoying whiny victim, I think you were incredibly brave to disclose all that horror (and then share it here too) and I can't imagine what on earth was going on in the counsellors head.

.